The automotive kingdom certainly has its fair share of misunderstood genres. The sport utility truck, the coupe SUV, even the sedan to an extent. However, as the decades have rolled by, cabriolets became one of the most misunderstood of all vehicle subtypes. Even though they were once common fixtures of the roads, as a society, we seem to have forgotten what they’re all about. Despite the vehicles themselves being at least mildly interesting, we’ve all heard the insults that get bandied about for drivers of convertibles. Mid-life crisis. Golfist. Poser.
Oh, and it often gets worse as the cars get faster. If a performance car offers the option of a fixed roof or a removable one, the one with the fixed roof is usually more desirable and the one with the ragtop is usually treated as a second-class vehicle. Why? Convertibles often cost more than their coupe equivalents, and people have proven willing to pay up for the privilege. What do these convertible buyers know that forum elitists don’t?
The truth is, they know a few things that are more overarching than outright technical expertise. They value experiences and involvement in the same way the slicktop, three-pedal-or-die brigade does, but their means of obtaining involvement are slightly different. Every convertible is, to at least some degree, an enthusiast car, it’s just that accepting this fact can be hard for some.
Granted, the elitists’ talking points aren’t drawn from thin air. Forty years ago, the average unibody had the torsional rigidity of al dente spaghettini, and cutting the roof off was a surefire way to make the cowl shake over expansion joints like it just took a polar plunge. Automakers attempted to compensate by welding in heavy bracing, but those mostly bloated curb weights without curbing apocryphal stories of air vents violently ejecting themselves from dashboards. However, we aren’t living in 1984 anymore, and for the past 20-some-odd years, convertibles have grown substantially more rigid. Sure, they’ve also grown substantially heavier, but in the real world, how much will you notice?
You may still be able to make this argument if you do a trackday every month and have teeth the shade of a freshly built model home’s walls, but most of us don’t commute to the office through carousel turns or think too much about what we eat in the context of lap times.
In fact, most of a typical car’s life will be spent sitting, followed by the daily grind on public roads at sensible speeds, and only a handful will ever turn a wheel on track. In the real world, with congestion and potholes and speed cameras conspiring to keep average speeds low, the sensations of letting the wind and sky in are more noticeable than a little extra chassis rigidity and a few dozen fewer pounds. It helps the car become an instrument of joy, and the Chrysler Sebring Convertible is one of the more telling examples from history.
Don’t get me wrong, the first-generation Chrysler Sebring was a perfectly okay car. Sure, the Ultradrive automatic gearbox wasn’t strong, but the Mitsubishi V6 was stout enough and the styling was perfectly handsome. When the second-generation model came along, it gained the abhorrent 2.7-liter Chrysler V6, frumpier styling, and a direct sedan version just to show everyone how truly uninspired the bones of the car were.
Despite this, the convertible variant took a subpar midsize sedan, removed two doors and a roof, and turned it into a little bit of an occasion. Sure, the interior was still an uncouth mishmash of shapes and materials, and the facelifted model still had the facial expression of a particularly bewildered rodent, but with the roof down and a breeze coming in, it was hard to care too much, wasn’t it? At that point, a dashboard is just a shelf for dust, after all.
Instead, drivers of these mediocre-at-best convertibles found themselves breathing in harmony with the universe, their senses fascinated by the machinations of Mother Nature. The rustling of hedges, the weight of the wind, an unfiltered view of 100 billion stars. A convertible reminds us that on a long enough timeline, we’re all just passing through, single-cell travelers in the universe’s largest terrarium. There’s a cathartic sense of insignificance that comes with such an experience, a freeing vulnerability that transcends metal and glass and reveals certain truths about humanity. Plus, it’s theoretically at least a little bit safer than a motorcycle, and you still get to meet some interesting people in the process.
Sadly, going roof-down is something fewer and fewer people are able to experience. Drop-top choices have been steadily dwindling since the turn of the millennium, with no signs of that trend reversing. There’s no more Chrysler Sebring Convertible or Toyota Solara Convertible or Pontiac G6 Convertible. No more BMW 2 Series cabriolet, or Mercedes-Benz SLK, or Audi A3 cabriolet. Mitsubishi doesn’t offer a convertible in America anymore, nor does Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Honda, Infiniti, Nissan, Toyota, Volkswagen, or Volvo. Even Jaguar’s current convertible dies this year, with no guarantee of a replacement.
If you’ve ever wanted a cabriolet, buy one, and don’t let the haters convince you otherwise. Better yet, if you’ve hated on convertibles for technical reasons in the past, I encourage you to take a step back and query whether or not the universe is about more than just objective engineering truths.
Yes, cutting the roof off a car can make it a bit heavier, a bit floppier, and a bit slower, but it can also make it better, for “better” can’t always be measured. Every incremental improvement in tin-top car rigidity will eventually become outmoded, so it’s worth approaching things with an open mind and trying to let the sun in for an experience that will always be timeless.
(Photo credits: BMW, Ford, Chrysler, Audi)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
Mine is a 2001 Mustang, and yes, it is a mid-life crisis car! But, I’m OK with that. I really wanted to own a convertible before my 50th birthday. I daily it. It’s not perfect, but it was cheap, and it makes me happy to drive to/from work. If only it made me happy in between!
I looked at Miatas, but wanted to be able to take the grandson along. His car seat fits in the back of the Mustang, while Grandma and I are in the front.
Mine is a 2001 Mustang, and yes, it is a mid-life crisis car! But, I’m OK with that. I really wanted to own a convertible before my 50th birthday. I daily it. It’s not perfect, but it was cheap, and it makes me happy to drive to/from work. If only it made me happy in between!
I looked at Miatas, but wanted to be able to take the grandson along. His car seat fits in the back of the Mustang, while Grandma and I are in the front.
2019 124 Abarth owner here: The open-top experience is so integral to me that I don’t even want to take the car out if I can’t have the top down.
Ditto as a Miata-owner
2019 124 Abarth owner here: The open-top experience is so integral to me that I don’t even want to take the car out if I can’t have the top down.
Ditto as a Miata-owner
I used to be snobby about convertibles, buying into all of that enthusiasts bloviating about body roll and rigidity, etc, but now I prefer ragtops. Owning 4 NA Miata’s converted me, and now, with the exception of my 968 coupe (cab version is just too hideous) , I always get the open air version if possible. Unless it’s a pure investment (I.e. a 911 cab will never appreciate like a tin top, unless speedster), or I plan to autocross it. They’re usually much cheaper, and they do something no hard top version can, which is make me grin ear to ear on a sunny day. Even my Saab c900 vert, with a chassis that might actually be made of rubber, or my 76’ Alfa spider, that’s inexplicably louder with the top up than down, will win against my tin-tops if the weather is promising for a drive to the coast. I drive my 986 Boxster S about 3x the miles as my Cayman S per year, even though the Cayman is the better car in almost every way.
You’re missing out if you think your fun, frivolous, weekend car needs to have maximum chassis rigidity for it to thrill you. Just like horsepower, stuff like that has become less important to than the visceral experience of the machine.
I used to be snobby about convertibles, buying into all of that enthusiasts bloviating about body roll and rigidity, etc, but now I prefer ragtops. Owning 4 NA Miata’s converted me, and now, with the exception of my 968 coupe (cab version is just too hideous) , I always get the open air version if possible. Unless it’s a pure investment (I.e. a 911 cab will never appreciate like a tin top, unless speedster), or I plan to autocross it. They’re usually much cheaper, and they do something no hard top version can, which is make me grin ear to ear on a sunny day. Even my Saab c900 vert, with a chassis that might actually be made of rubber, or my 76’ Alfa spider, that’s inexplicably louder with the top up than down, will win against my tin-tops if the weather is promising for a drive to the coast. I drive my 986 Boxster S about 3x the miles as my Cayman S per year, even though the Cayman is the better car in almost every way.
You’re missing out if you think your fun, frivolous, weekend car needs to have maximum chassis rigidity for it to thrill you. Just like horsepower, stuff like that has become less important to than the visceral experience of the machine.
Putting the top down is a safety feature. Convertibles increase the subjective sensation of speed without reducing driving enjoyment. I know incorrigible speeders who have turned their driving records around after getting a convertible.
Putting the top down is a safety feature. Convertibles increase the subjective sensation of speed without reducing driving enjoyment. I know incorrigible speeders who have turned their driving records around after getting a convertible.
Not to humble brag, but I am a lifelong devotee of open air motoring. I’ve had 2 Elises, a Caterham, TVR Chimera, Jag XKR, NA Miata, Suzuki Samurai, Solstice GXP, and arguably, SW20 T-top MR2 and C5 Targa. Nothing makes a doldrum drive as enjoyable as al fresco motoring. If it’s between 45 and 95 degrees, the top is off.
Not to humble brag, but I am a lifelong devotee of open air motoring. I’ve had 2 Elises, a Caterham, TVR Chimera, Jag XKR, NA Miata, Suzuki Samurai, Solstice GXP, and arguably, SW20 T-top MR2 and C5 Targa. Nothing makes a doldrum drive as enjoyable as al fresco motoring. If it’s between 45 and 95 degrees, the top is off.
Convertibles are cool! It’s the only type of car where people can literally see who you are clearly. Narcissistic, sure, but sometimes you just want a bit of that spotlight on yourself.
Convertibles are cool! It’s the only type of car where people can literally see who you are clearly. Narcissistic, sure, but sometimes you just want a bit of that spotlight on yourself.
I’ve never actually owned a convertible which is a massive gaping hole in my enthusiast career, so still waiting on the right car/time.
I do still have the T-top Firebird which is close, but still not entirely the same.
I’ve never actually owned a convertible which is a massive gaping hole in my enthusiast career, so still waiting on the right car/time.
I do still have the T-top Firebird which is close, but still not entirely the same.
I just did a mental calculation, and >half of my cars have been ‘verts.
Convertibles are wonderful. And a car designed as a convertible from the get-go can be magical. Recent fleet includes a Boxster 987 and Miata RF – outstanding driver’s cars. Had a BMW 135 – wonderful driver’s car, not as great as the Boxster but with “2” more seats. Several Jeeps. A 914 mixed in for fun.
They’re all amazeballs.
I just did a mental calculation, and >half of my cars have been ‘verts.
Convertibles are wonderful. And a car designed as a convertible from the get-go can be magical. Recent fleet includes a Boxster 987 and Miata RF – outstanding driver’s cars. Had a BMW 135 – wonderful driver’s car, not as great as the Boxster but with “2” more seats. Several Jeeps. A 914 mixed in for fun.
They’re all amazeballs.
I have to agree that having the top down is an unrivaled experience, but for me, there are only 2 kinds of great convertibles:
The first are roadsters like the Miata, Z4 and SL, because they don’t try to squeeze barely-acceptable rear seats under a top, or 17 acres of canvas/folding metal into the trunk, and they’re often engineered to have a soft top from the get go. This means their beefy frame rails are there from inception, and instead of having more spaghettis welded onto the spaghetti frame, they have a nice, thick fettucine to start with. One fettucine is stiffer, lighter and cheaper than three spaghettis welded together. This pleases my engineering nerd brain because I hate afterthoughts and band-aids in design.
Another advantage of 2-seaters is the ability to place structural roll hoops behind the driver and passenger without compromising functionality. My dearly departed Miata saw zero drawbacks when I installed Boss Frog hoops, and my Boxster came with them from the factory.
Roadsters are sports (or GT) cars all the way through, they may not be 100% optimized for speed but the driving experience is uncompromised whether on a mountain road or track.
The second are the unapologetic boats with no claim of performance. Cars like the Sebring, Golf Cabrio and El Dorado. These topless boxes exist to putt (or float) around at whatever speed is most comfortable and hear the birds sing. They’re generally based on either economy or luxury cars, never on performance ones.
Unlike the roadsters, you won’t find them at the mountain pass going toe-to-toe with any hardtop, instead they’ll be cruising to the beach, top down with 3 friends because they have real rear seats and don’t care one bit about weight, chassis stiffness or any other performance metrics. This doesn’t mean they can’t be powerful (El Dorado) or nimble (Golf Cabrio), but these features are secondary to the open-air experience.
The in-between cars are the ones that I just don’t find appealing. 4-seat GT or sports coupe-based convertibles like the M4, Silvia and Camaro are based on vehicles whose business case is some balance of practicality and performance. The cars they’re based on have large trunks and legitimately usable rear seats, at least for children.
When their tops are removed, they take the standard performance penalty, but also a huge practicality one. The rear seat is usually shrunk into a glorified shelf for duffle bags, and the trunk is severely encroached on as well. This is particularly egregious when there’s a folding hard top instead of a conventional soft top, as the trunk can shrink to the size of a glovebox with all that sheet metal inside This usually gives you a worst-of-both-worlds experience with Roadster-like practicality and boat-like performance when compared to their fixed-top counterparts.
(This doesn’t include T-tops and Targas, not because they’re stiff or light – Targas certainly aren’t – but because they usually retain the full-size back seats and even the rear hatch/parcel shelf in some cases, so the compromise is just performance)
By all means, that doesn’t mean that I want these compromised 2+2’s to stop existing, if you want a convertible Camaro just for V8 noises, that’s a noble pursuit I couldn’t deny anybody. It’s just not my cup of tea.
edge case: I love a roadster, but i do like the tiny rear benches on slightly larger convertibles; owner of a small dog, who goes nearly everywhere i do, including the office, and whose most frequent human passenger also has a small dog/constant companion. travel harnesses clip onto the rear seatbelts, not that i think either dog would try to jump out at this stage of their lives.
Couldn’t pull the trigger on a Miata or Alfa Spider due to nowhere for the dogs. Have owned a 500c, and rented a Mustang convertible for a week. really liked cruising around in the mustang, even in rental v6/auto spec. the 500C rear visibility was a daily problem with the top down though: it predated reverse cameras, and i’m probably shorter than Torch. Had to stand on the clutch and brake pedals to look before i backed out of parking spaces.
You know, I didn’t think about the dog. That’s a great use for a tiny rear seat.
I have to agree that having the top down is an unrivaled experience, but for me, there are only 2 kinds of great convertibles:
The first are roadsters like the Miata, Z4 and SL, because they don’t try to squeeze barely-acceptable rear seats under a top, or 17 acres of canvas/folding metal into the trunk, and they’re often engineered to have a soft top from the get go. This means their beefy frame rails are there from inception, and instead of having more spaghettis welded onto the spaghetti frame, they have a nice, thick fettucine to start with. One fettucine is stiffer, lighter and cheaper than three spaghettis welded together. This pleases my engineering nerd brain because I hate afterthoughts and band-aids in design.
Another advantage of 2-seaters is the ability to place structural roll hoops behind the driver and passenger without compromising functionality. My dearly departed Miata saw zero drawbacks when I installed Boss Frog hoops, and my Boxster came with them from the factory.
Roadsters are sports (or GT) cars all the way through, they may not be 100% optimized for speed but the driving experience is uncompromised whether on a mountain road or track.
The second are the unapologetic boats with no claim of performance. Cars like the Sebring, Golf Cabrio and El Dorado. These topless boxes exist to putt (or float) around at whatever speed is most comfortable and hear the birds sing. They’re generally based on either economy or luxury cars, never on performance ones.
Unlike the roadsters, you won’t find them at the mountain pass going toe-to-toe with any hardtop, instead they’ll be cruising to the beach, top down with 3 friends because they have real rear seats and don’t care one bit about weight, chassis stiffness or any other performance metrics. This doesn’t mean they can’t be powerful (El Dorado) or nimble (Golf Cabrio), but these features are secondary to the open-air experience.
The in-between cars are the ones that I just don’t find appealing. 4-seat GT or sports coupe-based convertibles like the M4, Silvia and Camaro are based on vehicles whose business case is some balance of practicality and performance. The cars they’re based on have large trunks and legitimately usable rear seats, at least for children.
When their tops are removed, they take the standard performance penalty, but also a huge practicality one. The rear seat is usually shrunk into a glorified shelf for duffle bags, and the trunk is severely encroached on as well. This is particularly egregious when there’s a folding hard top instead of a conventional soft top, as the trunk can shrink to the size of a glovebox with all that sheet metal inside This usually gives you a worst-of-both-worlds experience with Roadster-like practicality and boat-like performance when compared to their fixed-top counterparts.
(This doesn’t include T-tops and Targas, not because they’re stiff or light – Targas certainly aren’t – but because they usually retain the full-size back seats and even the rear hatch/parcel shelf in some cases, so the compromise is just performance)
By all means, that doesn’t mean that I want these compromised 2+2’s to stop existing, if you want a convertible Camaro just for V8 noises, that’s a noble pursuit I couldn’t deny anybody. It’s just not my cup of tea.
edge case: I love a roadster, but i do like the tiny rear benches on slightly larger convertibles; owner of a small dog, who goes nearly everywhere i do, including the office, and whose most frequent human passenger also has a small dog/constant companion. travel harnesses clip onto the rear seatbelts, not that i think either dog would try to jump out at this stage of their lives.
Couldn’t pull the trigger on a Miata or Alfa Spider due to nowhere for the dogs. Have owned a 500c, and rented a Mustang convertible for a week. really liked cruising around in the mustang, even in rental v6/auto spec. the 500C rear visibility was a daily problem with the top down though: it predated reverse cameras, and i’m probably shorter than Torch. Had to stand on the clutch and brake pedals to look before i backed out of parking spaces.
You know, I didn’t think about the dog. That’s a great use for a tiny rear seat.
Huh. Never heard anyone hate on them….. but I’ve definitely never had a desire to own one. Rented one with a friend in CA one time, and it was fine, but mostly I was like, “Okay, done with this now.”
But I’m someone who rarely even opens the windows of my cars, so maybe people just like different things.
Huh. Never heard anyone hate on them….. but I’ve definitely never had a desire to own one. Rented one with a friend in CA one time, and it was fine, but mostly I was like, “Okay, done with this now.”
But I’m someone who rarely even opens the windows of my cars, so maybe people just like different things.
As someone with an 05 Mustang GT convertible that has 3 pedals, I heartily cosign this article
As someone with an 05 Mustang GT convertible that has 3 pedals, I heartily cosign this article
I fully agree with your sentiment myself as a convertible owner. However, how you can mention convertibles without mentioning the Miata/MX-5(Fiat 124.)It’s one of the even fewer convertibles built from the start to be a convertible. This means better chassis rigidity and handling characteristics rather than the compromised ones you’ll get from cars that were built as coupes, but were then modified after the fact to have a convertible version such as the Ford Mustang or the BMW 3 series convertibles. In addition, because of its small size there is simply less chassis to flex. The only other currently mass produced cars that I believe are built from the start to be a convertible are the Porsche Boxster(yes I know the Cayman exists, but I think the Boxster/Cayman has always been intended to include a convertible)and the Corvette although the Corvette is really a T-top. Anyway these three cars offer a near if not completely uncompromised convertible experience while almost any other mass produced convertible is while fun definitely compromised. Not one of these arguably better convertibles was mentioned in spite of the fact that these cars nearly if not completely solve the issue you menton of chassis rigidity… Anyone who wants as close as you can get to a flexless or sport coupe experience while still getting the wind in their hair should be considering one of these three cars and not one of the others mentioned above.
I fully agree with your sentiment myself as a convertible owner. However, how you can mention convertibles without mentioning the Miata/MX-5(Fiat 124.)It’s one of the even fewer convertibles built from the start to be a convertible. This means better chassis rigidity and handling characteristics rather than the compromised ones you’ll get from cars that were built as coupes, but were then modified after the fact to have a convertible version such as the Ford Mustang or the BMW 3 series convertibles. In addition, because of its small size there is simply less chassis to flex. The only other currently mass produced cars that I believe are built from the start to be a convertible are the Porsche Boxster(yes I know the Cayman exists, but I think the Boxster/Cayman has always been intended to include a convertible)and the Corvette although the Corvette is really a T-top. Anyway these three cars offer a near if not completely uncompromised convertible experience while almost any other mass produced convertible is while fun definitely compromised. Not one of these arguably better convertibles was mentioned in spite of the fact that these cars nearly if not completely solve the issue you menton of chassis rigidity… Anyone who wants as close as you can get to a flexless or sport coupe experience while still getting the wind in their hair should be considering one of these three cars and not one of the others mentioned above.
As the proud owner of a 2009 Mercedes-Benz CLK350 Convertible:
Yes.